alextemplet wrote:Seems to have been very little anti-evolutionist activity on the forum lately. Had you asked this question a few months ago you might've gotten yourself into quite a debate.

do you need me

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

Well, of course you do. Don't let the fact that Amairahryder is wrong about almost everything he has posted sway you to the contrary! Like I said... you cannot use a rational argument to persuade someone who's position was arrived at in a non-rational manner.

What proof is there that he is wrong? (Not trying to argue.... just trying to figure out the truth.)

He was wrong about The Big Bang. He was wrong about even using The Big Bang as an argument against evolution. He was wrong to imply that being a Christian means he cannot accept evolution. That was basically his entire argument and it was all wrong. Why do you "completely agree" with him??

well i don't agree with him about the big bang theory, but i am a christian.I don't think he is completely correct about Christians don't believe in evolution at all...i mean we do believe in some of it,but not all of it. so my mistake i don't completely agree with him.

you can't believe some of evolution, but not all of it. For a regular person who doesn't care to shift through the details, evolution goes down to this: natural selection is the only force that can shape complexity from simplicity and chance organisms over time. Through natural selection organisms can change over time to be as best adapted to their environment as possible. By this I mean that you need to believe that the organisms that exist today are solely the result of less adapted organisms dying and better adapted ones surviving and reproducing. If you believe that organisms do change over time but through some sort of divine intervention or something like that, then honestly, you have missed the whole point. I'm not saying you can't be a christian and believe in evolution. You can. I'm just saying: don't pretend to believe in evolution if you really don't. It is something that greatly offends scientists.

"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

AmairahRyder wrote:Wait, hold on robsabba. I dont know where you got the idea that christians are okay with evolution. That completely destroys the purpose for Creation! and Evolution is not a fact. if it's so true, why are we still sitting here like idiots arguing over it?!

Most Christian denominations do not have an issue with evolution, including Catholicism. It is mainly in the United States where you have many more Independent Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians and an anti-intellectual culture that creationism prospers. Evolution describes how species were created, not by whom, or where the first life came from. The reason we are still arguing about this is because creationists cannot be persuaded by rational arguments. This is because they did not arrive at their entrenched dogma by rational means in the first place.

"Well, of course you do. Don't let the fact that Amairahryder is wrong about almost everything he has posted sway you to the contrary! Like I said... you cannot use a rational argument to persuade someone who's position was arrived at in a non-rational manner."

First of all, im NOT a he. Amairah is a girl's name. Second, please explain to me why I'm so "wrong about everything"! And I'm perfectly fine with your whole " you cannot use a rational argument to persuade someone who's position was arrived at in a non-rational manner." Thing, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to say my piece.

What proof is there that he is wrong? (Not trying to argue.... just trying to figure out the truth.)[/quote]

He was wrong about The Big Bang. He was wrong about even using The Big Bang as an argument against evolution. He was wrong to imply that being a Christian means he cannot accept evolution. That was basically his entire argument and it was all wrong. Why do you "completely agree" with him??[/quote]

Okay. I get it. You evolutionists may have a bit more knowledge on the subject than me, but you're missing my point. All I'm saying is that a bird mas made a bird, a lizard made a lizard, a monkey a monkey and so on and so forth. Of course it's possible (or completely true) that some birds came from cross-breeds of other birds. I mean, they do that with domestic pets, right? But all I'm saying is that a whole species didn't come from some other species.

AmairahRyder wrote:Okay. I get it. You evolutionists may have a bit more knowledge on the subject than me, but you're missing my point. All I'm saying is that a bird mas made a bird, a lizard made a lizard, a monkey a monkey and so on and so forth. Of course it's possible (or completely true) that some birds came from cross-breeds of other birds. I mean, they do that with domestic pets, right? But all I'm saying is that a whole species didn't come from some other species.

1. Sorry about the gender thing. 2. If you come here and try to make incorrect scientific arguments against evolution, you will be called out on it. 3. Yes, birds give birth to birds, etc. In the case of humans, our ancestors were eukaryotes, animals, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, primates, and apes. We still are all of these. You cannot escape your heredity.4. Speciation has been observed both in nature and in the lab.

Having read through quite a few posts, I am wondering if others share my view, concerning what I believe to be a pretty strong argument against evolution.

From what I have been taught, when an environment changes the creatures evolve to adjust to the changes. Geographically the process was thought to have taken millions of years, either tectonic or climatic. This makes sense. However, much evidence is emerging that geological and climatic changes have in the past occured within a few centuries. This, surely, debunks a portion of evolution theory in that if the environment changes dramatically, the creatures that can, move to another area, denying the need for evolution to take place.

If the creatures live on an island, they have nowhere to go, and therefore must adapt or die, if succesful they might evolve, or will they? Apparently the New Zealand tuatara has not evolved in the last 5 millions years.

So, if change is the greatest motivator of evolution, and change can apparently be very quick(in geological terms), Then how will evolution occur on a large landmass when the creatures affected by change can move elsewhere? No need to evolve here......

I realise it may sound simplistic, maybe someone can illuminate a glaring error in my thought......

They are changing all the time. We in Czech say something like 'the prepared are lucky' and here it's the same. If they are adaptable, they can survive, if not, they will extinct (or move away, if they have enough time). Take the glacial, that was slow, so animals could go to south and didn't have to evolve, whereas some volcano eruption is a fast event. Even if they moved away, there will be Area of Noone and that won't be left for long time, but some animals, who can live there will move there, because they won't have concurence. That's the reason, why isn't everyone on the equator, although there is probably the best weather (no cold, enough rains, maybe too much:)

I think the reason why everyone does not live on the equator is that humans, like all creatures are pragmatists, only acting when nessesary. Throughout the ages no creature, other than humans, has decided to risk the survival of their family unless it was impelled to do so through either territorial conflict, or starvation.

My main argument still remains, without a reason to change, one will not change or evolve. This I believe, includes animals. You state that we are always changing, if this is so, then every creature is changing at a very different rate, there are creatures that seem to have gone through enormous change since the dinosaurs, and others not at all.

Even with something everyone takes for granted, the first organisms that emerged from the ocean to develop lungs and legs, why leave the ocean, if food runs out, the population corrects itself. If the environment changes occur slow enough adaptation takes place, which may include variances between populations of shared hereditary due solely to cross-breeding naturally. but I fail to see any environment in the history of the planet that has been a stable environment long enough for an organism to evolve without it's existence been wiped completely.

It is these questions, in my mind, that indicate that much in the theory of evolution is taken for granted, that in principle there are very good ideas, but I believe there are very big gaps in the bridge that people behold as a solid, strong bridge spanning the history of the planet.